From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14111 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2002 21:39:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14101 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 21:39:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 21:39:45 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7DLQ4l07362 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:26:04 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7DLdau12097; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:39:36 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7DLdTe16866; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:39:30 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7DLdSW06905; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:39:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:39:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020813213928.ZM6904@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFA] procfs.c: TARGET_CAN_USE_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINT via target vector" (Aug 13, 5:11pm) References: <1020812213802.ZM1237@localhost.localdomain> <3D5975FF.3080106@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [RFA] procfs.c: TARGET_CAN_USE_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINT via target vector Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 On Aug 13, 5:11pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > +#ifndef TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS > > I just think the macro should be `largely' renamed: > ``PROCFS_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS''. > > Largely? There are a few exceptions -- i386v-nat.c and mips/tm-embed.h > which could be left alone. For the procfs related uses, I suspect that we can eliminate the use of the macro altogether. (I'd prefer to get Michael's opinion though before attempting such a change.) Kevin